Centre for Health Policy, Programs and Economics, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St, Carlton Vic 3010, Australia.
Int J Equity Health. 2009 Feb 27;8:4. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-8-4.
In this paper we seek to tease out differences in socioeconomic position between ethnic groups. There are 3 main reasons why conventional socioeconomic indicators and asset based measures may not be equally applicable to all ethnic groups:1) Differences in response rate to conventional socioeconomic indicators2) Cultural and social differences in economic priorities/opportunities3) Differences in housing quality, assets and debt within socioeconomic strata
The sample consisted of White (n = 227), African-Caribbean (n = 213) and Indian and Pakistani (n = 233) adults aged between 18 and 59 years living in Leeds as measured in a stratified population survey. Measures included income, education, employment, car ownership, home ownership, housing quality, household assets, investments, debt, perceived ability to obtain various sums and perceived level of financial support given and received.
Response rates to education and income questions were similar for the different ethnic groups. Overall response rates for income were much lower than those for education and biased towards wealthier people. There were differences between ethnic groups in economic priorities/opportunities particularly in relation to car ownership, home ownership, investment and debt. Differences in living conditions, household assets and debt between ethnic groups were dependent on differences in education; however differences in car ownership, home ownership, ability to obtain pound10 000, and loaning money to family/friends and income from employment/self employment persisted after adjustment for education.
In the UK, education appears to be an effective variable for measuring variation in SEP across ethnic groups but the ability to account for SEP differences may be improved by the addition of car and home ownership, ability to obtain pound10 000, loaning money to family/friends and income from employment/self employment. Further research is required to establish the degree to which results of this study are generalisable.
本文旨在探讨不同族裔之间社会经济地位的差异。传统的社会经济指标和基于资产的衡量方法可能不适用于所有族裔，主要有以下 3 个原因：1）对传统社会经济指标的响应率存在差异；2）经济优先事项/机会方面的文化和社会差异；3）社会经济阶层内住房质量、资产和债务的差异。
本研究的样本包括居住在利兹的 18 至 59 岁的白人（n=227）、非裔加勒比人（n=213）和印度裔和巴基斯坦裔（n=233）成年人，采用分层人群调查进行测量。测量指标包括收入、教育、就业、汽车拥有情况、住房拥有情况、住房质量、家庭资产、投资、债务、获得各种金额的能力感知以及获得和给予的经济支持程度。
不同族裔群体对教育和收入问题的响应率相似。总体而言，收入问题的响应率远低于教育问题，而且偏向于较富裕的人群。族裔群体之间在经济优先事项/机会方面存在差异，特别是在汽车拥有、住房拥有、投资和债务方面。族裔群体之间的生活条件、家庭资产和债务差异取决于教育程度的差异；然而，在调整教育因素后，汽车拥有、住房拥有、获得 1 万英镑的能力、向家人/朋友借款以及就业/自营职业收入等方面的差异仍然存在。
在英国，教育似乎是衡量族裔间社会经济地位差异的有效变量，但通过增加汽车和住房拥有、获得 1 万英镑的能力、向家人/朋友借款以及就业/自营职业收入等指标，可能会提高对社会经济地位差异的解释能力。需要进一步的研究来确定本研究结果的普遍性程度。
